Peter Khooshabeh, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Mary Hegarty, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Thomas F. Shipley, Department of Psychology, Temple University

Abstract

Although there is good evidence that mental rotation is an analog
process, the question of whether objects are rotated holistically or piecemeal
has remained controversial. This study examined differences in mental rotation
strategies between good and poor imagers, defined by accuracy on the Shepard and
Metzler (1971) mental rotation task. In two experiments, participants performed
the mental rotation task with either complete or fragmented figures (figures with
some missing cubes). Poor imagers performed similarly on fragmented and complete
figures. Good imagers were more accurate and faster in general, but had longer
reaction times on fragmented figures than on complete figures. These results
suggest that good imagers use holistic mental rotation strategies, while poor
imagers use piecemeal strategies.